My ire for littering is well-known. It annoys me to no end that some smokers think the world is their ashtray. Anytime I see some careless bastard tossing a cigarette out their window, I send their license plate number to the NCDOT’s Swat-A-Litterbug page, resulting in a nastygram being mailed to them from the highway patrol. I’d venture to guess I’m one of their top litter reporters.
That’s why I’m fine with the Parks board’s recent vote to outlaw smoking in Raleigh parks. To me, it’s about personal responsibility. You, as a smoker, do not have the right to litter. It’s your responsibility to dispose of your cigarette butts properly. Tossing them out the window or leaving them on a playground is not acceptable. It is not my job, or the job of park staff or park patrons, to clean up after you! Smokers must take responsibility for the trash they create, and far too many of the smokers in our parks have refused to do so. It’s unfortunate that the actions of a few will affect the actions of many, but that’s what responsibility is all about. If some people cannot be responsible they shouldn’t be surprised when there are consequences.
I also am a strong believer in the libertarian view that “your rights end where mine begin.” Smokers do not have the right to pollute my air. If someone wants to light up in their own home, yard, or vehicle then – hey – knock yourself out. Just don’t expect me to breathe your smoke or pick up your trash.
When I go to a park I go there fully intending to use my lungs, in exercise or whatever. I have the right to breathe fresh air. Everyone does, and I think it’s proper that our parks be known as healthy places to visit and not for the cigarette butts and smoke that some inconsiderate few choose to add to them.
(I posted this for my friend Ken Thomas)
I think you’re profoundly wrong on this “smoking in the parks” thing. I was going to post a comment on your site, but I couldn’t figure out how to log in to do it.
Part of this may have to do with the fact that I like smoking cigars, but I like to think I’d feel the same way even if I wasn’t a smoker.
1. The harm of secondary smoke has never even been proven for people exposed to smoking indoors. Assuming some kind of harm outdoors is simply absurd.
2. People who smoke also pay taxes that support those parks. That would seem to give them a certain amount of rights regarding accessing them, and what they choose to do in them.
3. Yes, some people that smoke throw their butts on the ground. Some people who have picnics leave food wrappers. Some people walk their dogs and don’t pick up the poo. Are you going to push equally hard to have picnicers and dog walkers banned from the parks?
4. You seem to be offended by smoking. Polluting your air, etc. What if I declare I’m offended by the noise kids make? Or offended by people tossing a frisbee around? Ever since I was abducted by aliens I have flashbacks every time I see a flying disk. Or offended by dogs and their poop all over the place? OK, yeah – I’m exagerrating, but to me, none of those things seems any more absurd than being offended by someone else, somewhere over there, smoking a cigarette.
In all honesty, what I do find kind of offensive is self-righteous people trying to force their values on others, and I have a hard time viewing this kind of rule as anything other than that. And as for it being a Libertarian position? Come on, man – seriously? On public property? You’d have to prove some kind of harm before you could even begin to justify that.
I will give you credit for one thing. At least you’re not defending it with the “some people are allergic to cigarette smoke” bit. That’s a personal pet peeve with me. It’s not an allergen. It’s impossible to be “allergic” to cigarette smoke. If people think it smells bad, fine. I think dog poop smells bad, but I don’t have to manufacture a fictional medical condition to justify the fact that I don’t like the way it smells.
the second hand smoke is one thing. You could make an argument for that. But littering?!?
Isn’t littering illegal already? Are smokers the only ones that litter? If part of your rationale for this ban is based around littering (and it seems to be the jist of this post) then you need to look at other areas too. Plenty of people leave bottles and trash all over the park across from me. Should we ban drinks and food?
Also, don’t forget dogs. Yeah, some people clean up the poop but not all! Nothing is more frustrating than stepping in dog poop. We should ban dogs from park because they pollute them. Also, they’re urine isn’t exactly good for the park either. Both those things violate my rights because they affect me.
See where I’m going? You gonna stop at smoking and not touch anything else? I highly doubt that…
I recently talked to someone with the NCDOT Litterbug group. During the dry summer, people that threw lit cigarettes out (and were reported) also got a letter from the Fire Marshal.
I’m not much concerned about the health effects. Some may be but not me. I’m sick of the cigarette butts that some smokers apparently don’t consider to be litter. And as Scott R. pointed out, lit cigarettes pose a fire hazard, unlike bottles and wrappers. Raleigh has seen at least two devastating apartment fires recently that were caused by discarded smoking materials. In fact, one was Raleigh’s biggest fire in its history. If a similar fire began in the middle of one of Raleigh’s parks or greenways, how would the fire department get to the fire to fight it? I don’t see a fire truck driving down a greenway path.
Also, this is just about our city parks. You can still smoke everywhere else that smoking is allowed. There is no overriding health crusade here.
As for dogs, well we do in fact ban dog poop. There is an ordinance in place to (hopefully) keep clueless dog owners from polluting the public.
To me, it’s all about taking responsibility for one’s actions. Either you dispose of your butts properly or you lose the privilege of smoking in the parks. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Not all smokers are this irresponsible but unfortunately there are enough to ruin it for the others.
While we’re talking about rights, what about my right to visit a park not littered with cigarettes? What about my right to breathe clean air? Are these somehow less important than one’s supposed right to smoke?
I respect your right to choose what you put in your lungs. You must respect my right to do the same.
First of all, if you’re outdoors, and yet you’re convinced that cigarette smoke is still harming you somehow, then I don’t know what to tell you, man. From my point of view that seems like a patently absurd position to take, with no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it.
If you don’t require some minimal evidence of harm, then anyone can raise a stink about any activity they don’t like – which is what I was trying to illustrate by talking about dog poop and frisbees.
Look, public property is a big deal. If you’re going to impose your will on another person, and dictate what they can and cannot do on public property, then the burden of proof is on you. Show me some evidence that cigarette smoke, outdoors, is actually harmful. Your overly tender sensibilities do not constitute proof of harm.
As I said before, I would like to be the one to make the decision, not someone else. Second-hand smoke might not kill me but it sure as hell irritates my sinuses. For that I don’t need scientific proof.
As for public property, drunk drivers pay taxes, too, but that doesn’t give them the right to go careening around drunk on public streets. The public has decided that driving drunk poses a threat to the public health. Smoking doesn’t provide the same impact but it kills people just the same. Over ten times the number of people die from heart disease, cancer, stroke, and upper respiratory disease than from accidents.
All that aside, my main concern has and is the litter from cigarette butts, which remains long after the smoker is gone. They ain’t gonna pick themselves up.
You sound kind of like the teacher on South Park who can only repeat the phrase “Drugs are bad, OK?” over and over again. The subtext of that running joke is that the teacher doesn’t have any actual facts or evidence or logic to work with. He just feels really strongly that drugs are bad.
I think the facts on this issue make you uncomfortable, because everyone in your social circle has probably spent years honing their ‘righteous indignation’ skills on this smoking issue, and no one ever questions whether it’s true or not. It feels true, right? That should be enough.
Here are some facts.
– There is no evidence that secondhand smoke has ever harmed anyone indoors. Outdoors is just laughable.
– Everybody in the US has a 1% chance of getting lung cancer.
– People who smoke for at least 20 years have a 7% chance of getting lung cancer.
– Since science requires a rate of 50% or more to establish a causal relationship, smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.
– There’s also no evidence it causes the other conditions you talked about, although it may exacerbate them.
– There’s some evidence that living near a highway, or simply in a large metropolitan area, causes more lung damage than smoking.
Look, I’m really sorry about your sensitive nasal passages, but since smokers pay the same taxes to support the parks as you do, and presumably have the same rights to those parks, then wouldn’t it make just as much sense (if not more) to ban people from parks who have sensitive noses?
And this whole thing about the littering just doesn’t wash, Mark. I’ve asked you once already – are you going to extend the ban to every potential litterer? Dog walkers? Picnickers? How about we ban anybody who has a candy bar in their pocket? They might throw the wrapper on the ground, you know. Can’t have that.
I’m repeating myself, but you’re dodging the bigger question here so I’ll bring it up again. In a society of free individuals, if you want to impose your will on another person and restrict their liberties, then the burden of proof is on you. The facts don’t support the argument that an individual smoker is harming you any more than any other person who uses a park. So are you honestly willing to set a precedent here that says “I don’t like it, so I’m going to make a rule that says they can’t do it.”
Then I suppose all of this is urban legend?
Secondhand Smoke and Cancer
Key Points
* Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoke, and passive smoke) is the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product and the smoke exhaled by a smoker (see Question 1).
* More than 50 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to cause cancer (see Question 3).
* Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers (see Question 4).
* Secondhand smoke has also been associated with heart disease in adults and sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, and asthma attacks in children (see Question 5).
* There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke (see Question 6).
1. What is secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoke, and passive smoke) is the combination of “sidestream” smoke (the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product) and “mainstream” smoke (the smoke exhaled by a smoker) (1–4).
People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings. In the United States, the source of most secondhand smoke is from cigarettes, followed by pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products (4).
The amount of smoke created by a tobacco product depends on the amount of tobacco available for burning. The amount of secondhand smoke emitted by smoking one large cigar is similar to that emitted by smoking an entire pack of cigarettes.
2. How is secondhand smoke exposure measured?
Secondhand smoke exposure can be measured by testing indoor air for nicotine or other chemicals in tobacco smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke can also be tested by measuring the level of cotinine (a by-product of the breakdown of nicotine) in a nonsmoker’s blood, saliva, or urine (1). Nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide, and other smoke-related chemicals have been found in the body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.
3. Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Among the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, for example, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.
More than 50 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer (1, 5). These include the following:
* Arsenic
* Benzene
* Beryllium (a toxic metal)
* 1,3–Butadiene (a hazardous gas)
* Cadmium
* Chromium (a metallic element)
* Ethylene oxide
* Nickel (a metallic element)
* Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element)
* Vinyl chloride
Other toxic chemicals in secondhand smoke are suspected to cause cancer, including (1):
* Formaldehyde
* Benzo[?]pyrene
* Toluene
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, such as the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the tobacco product is smoked, and, for cigarettes and cigars, the material in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).
4. Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 6).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.
5. What are the other health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke is associated with disease and premature death in nonsmoking adults and children (4). Exposure to secondhand smoke irritates the airways and has immediate harmful effects on a person’s heart and blood vessels. It may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent (4). In the United States, secondhand smoke is thought to cause about 46,000 heart disease deaths each year (7). There may also be a link between exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of stroke and hardening of the arteries; however, additional research is needed to confirm this link.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless (4).
6. What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even low levels of secondhand smoke can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke (4).
7. What is being done to reduce nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke?
On the national level, several laws restricting smoking in public places have been passed. Federal law bans smoking on domestic airline flights, nearly all flights between the United States and foreign destinations, interstate buses, and most trains. Smoking is also banned in most federally owned buildings. The Pro-Children Act of 1994 prohibits smoking in facilities that routinely provide federally funded services to children.
Many state and local governments have passed laws prohibiting smoking in public facilities, such as schools, hospitals, airports, bus terminals, parks, and beaches, as well as private workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Some states have passed laws regulating smoking in multiunit housing and cars. More than half of the states have enacted statewide bans on workplace smoking.
To highlight the health risks from secondhand smoke, the National Cancer Institute, a component of the National Institutes of Health, holds meetings and conferences in states, counties, cities, or towns that are smoke free, unless specific circumstances justify an exception to this policy. More information is available at http://meetings.smokefree.gov/ on the Internet
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2010, a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda, included the goal of reducing the proportion of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from 65 percent to 45 percent by 2010 (8). More information about this program is available on the Healthy People 2010 Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov/ on the Internet.
Internationally, a growing number of nations, including France, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Uruguay, require all workplaces, including bars and restaurants, to be smoke free.
Selected References
1. National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens. Eleventh Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2005.
2. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Progress Report 2003. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 2004.
3. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. Lyon, France: 2002. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
5. National Cancer Institute. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1999. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 10.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke–ETS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
7. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part B Health Effects, 2005.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.
# # #
Related NCI materials and Web pages:
* National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.15, Smokeless Tobacco and Cancer
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/smokeless)
* National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.17, “Light” Cigarettes and Cancer Risk
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/light-cigarettes)
* National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.22, How To Handle Withdrawal Symptoms and Triggers When You Decide To Quit Smoking
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/symptoms-triggers-quitting)
* National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.23, Where To Get Help When You Decide To Quit Smoking
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/help-quitting)
* Clearing the Air: Quit Smoking Today (http://www.smokefree.gov/pubs/clearing-the-air_acc.pdf)
Regardless, your smoking may or may not affect my health, but when you infringe on my right to fresh air, you’re in the wrong. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way but it might do you some good to look at it from someone else’s point of view.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ken.
Oh, I’m enjoying the discussion. I hope you are too. 😉
But copy-and-pasting a bunch of vague and largely irrelevant hoo-ah is cheating a little, don’t you think? Toluene? Benzene? Formaldehyde in second-hand smoke? Of course. Those chemicals are present in every breath we take, Mark. The article is careful to avoid discussing quantity of those chemicals, and then hope you won’t be smart enough to notice.
Also, don’t you think the repeated use of the word “indoor” is significant? It’s a blatant propaganda piece. If they could have possibly included the outdoors without sounding completely ludicrous, don’t you think they would have done so?
And I quit smoking cigarettes some years ago, but when I started smoking? I could smoke on airplanes. I could smoke in malls. I could smoke in restaurants. I could smoke in bars. I could smoke on the bus. I could smoke on trains. I smoked in the waiting room at the hospital. I could smoke when I used a public restroom. I could smoke in any hotel room I wanted to smoke in.
I couldn’t do any of that today. None of it. I think I’ve seen it from “your point of view” quite enough, thank you. Just how far do we need to go before your sensitive nose is adequately protected?
Actually, isn’t this ban all tobacco products? What’s the rationale in banning dip or chew?